ubizmo wrote:

'A definition was supplied. There's nothing in that definition that shows that plants are not food for humans. You persist in saying that they're not, however. I and others have asked you repeatedly to say precisely why no plants satisfy that definition. You have not done so. Instead you've substituted your own invented definition of "food" and repeated that plants don't fit that one. So I guess that's the end of the line.'

But M Levac would not actually accept that as the 'end of the line' although it did sum up nicely the tactics of defining 'food' as being 'only something edible that, if ingested, needs no other supplemental edibles to sustain perfect health' (I'm paraphrasing M Levac's ridiculous definition of food).

M Levac transfers the burden of proving once and for all what 'food' actually is to the anyone else - just so he can come back and correct their definition.

So, ubizmo does respond, thinking it may add clarity to state the following:

'The argument that plants are not necessary for survival, therefore they are not food, has no merit. Likewise, the fact that plants alone do not sustain good health indefinitely does not show that they are not food. There is nothing in the definition of food that entails that for something to count as food, you must be able to thrive on that particular thing exclusively for an indefinite period.'

M Levac says (I suspect with one eyebrow raised and already typing his next witty riposte):

'I will accept this post of yours as an answer.'

Works for me! I agree with Ubizmo. So, let's stick a fork in this thing and call it done.

Martin, I'm a delicate, delicate soul with severe social anxiety. Please don't belittle me. It ain't nice.


Nothing, and I mean nothing in this;



is off-topic. You may need to define off-topic for me. Perhaps I've been off-topic elsewhere in this thread. Or perhaps, when I'm uncertain about the truth, I try to get a better view of the situation. I think I've only been off-topic in this thread to the extent that I've tried to question your claim that plants aren't food. Otherwise, I've just tried to see whether the Inuit covered in the book the blog was about were actually the same Inuit Stefannson learned about the all-meat diet from.

Maybe you don't see the consequence of accepting it as food even if it fits the definition only partially. Let's demonstrate the point. I think I have a car to sell you. It's missing the wheels, the chassis, the transmission, the bodywork, the gas tank, but there's still the engine. Hey, if it fits the definition only partially, it's still a car, right?

OK, I'll be nice.

Not a single person here has shown that plants were food for humans. Rather, nobody has shown that the Inuit ate plants for nourishment. Some have tried, but failed. The closest anybody came was when it was first declared that it can still be called a thing even if it fits the definition only partially. So, it's still food even if it doesn't sustain life, promote growth, or provide energy, maybe not at the same time. I don't know about you, but I think that's the weakest argument I've ever seen, and I know about weak arguments I assure you.

I remember one guy who claimed to have eaten zero carb. Yet when examined more closely, we find that he ate loads of plants. He explained that it was this diet that made him sick. He then proceeded to warn the planet about the dangers of eating zero carb. Same thing here. He accepted it as the real thing even if it fits the definition only partially.

Then there's a thread in this forum called "Atkins didn't work for me". It's the same thing. They still call it Atkins even if it fits the definition only partially, or in this case, not at all. But that doesn't stop them from blaming the dead guy.

I think it's a shame that nobody had questioned what the blog author said. I think it's a shame that anybody who agreed with what she said, did so without a single thought as to the validity of what she said. It's food and that's that. How eloquent.

Thanks for the nice.



Martin, people did question what she said. When I tried to verify whether or not the Inuit in the book were of the same culture as the Inuit Stefansson wrote about, isn't that exactly what I was doing?

The car analogy-- missing certain components, this "car" won't get you far. Supplemented with the missing parts-- it's a car. You don't have to trash the whole kaboodle, just replace the missing parts. The same could be said of diet.

Your definition of "food"--- I think I'd use the term "complete diet" in it's place. Those sweet-potato people aside, I don't really think that an all-plant diet is "complete." The juxtaposition of the all-tuber diet with a land once famous for cannibalism seems kind of suspicious.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/food



Okay, never mind number four, that obviously isn't on topic. Nothing in this definition suggests that plant or animal matter has to contain all essential body nutrients. I would disagree that carbohydrate is an "essential body nutrient" for most people. Although it becomes one, if fat is nowhere to be had. "Contains or consists of essential body nutrients," as opposed to "Contains or consists of all essential body nutrients.

To sustain life and promote growth, it must provide energy. Since we can get energy from plant matter, doesn't it fit the definition? If we couldn't derive energy from plant matter, vegetarians would drop dead in approximately 6 to 12 weeks.

We must not forget that key foods are fortified with certain essential nutrients. For example, vitamin D to prevent rickets, iron to prevent anemia, vitamin C to prevent scurvy, etc. Without this fortification, deficiency develops quickly. It should be noted that meat is not fortified by default, and that only plant foods are fortified by default. Makes you think.

That's a new insight. Let's explore it. A complete diet would be one that mimics the function of food. An incomplete diet would be one that lacks certain essential elements, and thus could not be considered food. We have a vegan diet that lacks certain essential elements which makes it inadequate for humans, i.e. it is not food. (correction, I don't know if it lacks essential elements, I just know it doesn't sustain life, so it must lack essential elements, or somehow deplete them) This should answer your questions above about the car analogy and the reassembly with missing parts. If even after reassembly, it still doesn't transport me where I want to go, it fails to be a car, it's just a hunk o' junk. That would be a vegan diet again. On the other side of the argument, pemmican is also a reassembly of the missing parts but here we have a working car.

The mixed diet is another beast. But it's easy to demystify: Take out the plants and see if it's still food. Yes, it's still food. If a mixed diet maintains us in perfect health indefinitely, then it's food, i.e. a complete diet. If it doesn't then it's not. However, the qualification for being complete does not come from the plants, but from the animal flesh. For proof: Take out the plants and see if it's still food. Or take out the animal flesh and see if it's still food. Either will give a satisfactory answer. We could be pointy and argue that the meat in some mixed diets is not enough on its own like just the lean for example, i.e rabbits. But I would argue that I don't know of a single traditional mixed diet that actively avoids the fat of the animal. Maybe there is one, I just don't think we're going to find it. I posit that any traditional diet would pass that test.

Thank you.

Later in this thread, you wrote, "Not a single person here has shown that plants were food for humans." But that's false. A number of us have shown it. We have the definition, and (some) plants satisfy it, exactly as I explained in the post that you're accepting as my answer. Altari does so more concisely than I did, just a few posts back. The human body can use the substances in plants for energy, for building tissue (needed for growth and maintenance), and for vital processes. Plants don't partially satisfy the definition of food; they completely satisfy it. They satisfy all the conditions of the definition, so there's nothing left to do to show that they are foods for humans.

And just so you don't misunderstand me, that doesn't make them ideal foods; it merely makes them full-fledged foods. To use your car analogy, a Nissan Sentra is a car and a Lexus GX is a car. The Lexus is a better car, but both are cars.

But you have yet to answer my question. In what respect do all plants fail to satisfy the actual definition of "food", as opposed to your invented one?

Just so you don't miss it.

Ubizmo

Stick in a "complete" before every use of the word "food" in this paragraph, and I find I have much less to disagree with.

Let's see, do I think an all-meat diet is more nourishing than an all plant diet? As long I'm allowed to eat the whole animal, I'm very strongly inclined to think yes. I eat so little plant matter that I really hope that meat is sufficient in and of itself for optimal health. But do I know?

The RDA for various nutrients is based on how much of those nutrients must be in the diet so that most people won't develop a deficiency disease. The two people in the Bellevue study aren't enough people to establish that some deficiencies wouldn't have developed in a larger study population. I just don't know. Deficiencies don't have to develop because of a problem with the food in question, either; there are people who have vitamin b12 absorption issues, and would be deficient even on all meat.

I am reminded of a discussion I had about the term "practice". The term is clearly defined. There is no ambiguity. When we practice, we don't do anything else. If we do anything else, we don't practice. The argument was that it was possible to practice without purpose, to waste one's time on the driving range (a discussion about golf practice). And so, to emphasize "proper" practice, they used the term "perfect practice". To demonstrate, just look up the term practice and see that it is clearly defined and there is no mistaken its nature. This is akin to saying "complete food" instead of just "food". If it's food, it is complete by definition. If it's incomplete or only fits the definition partially, then it's not food. It brings us right back where we started.

When I practice, I "systematically perform an exercise for the purpose of acquiring skill". Accordingly, when I eat food, I do so for the purpose of nourishment. Rather, when I want nourishment, I eat food. That's because the only thing that can give me nourishment is food. Not almost food, or partial food, or "complete" food, just food.

Why do we fortify key foods with certain essential elements? Can this practice be considered feeding? Or is it instead therapy? I posit that it is therapy since the act that causes the problem is allowed to go on. So, we eat incomplete food, but also eat therapeutic agents to counter the failing of the incomplete food. If we didn't eat the incomplete food, or if the food was complete, we wouldn't need the fortification, we wouldn't need the therapy. Never mind that those elements we fortify our foods with are themselves considered essential nutrients. Some of those essential nutrients are also therapeutic in pharmaceutical quantities like vitamin C for example. The argument becomes much more obvious when we consider that we advocate a high carb diet all the while prescribing anti-diabetic drugs.

Human speech is full of ambiguity. Unavoidably. This is why terms need to be agreed on, before there can be anything approaching understanding.

Ah, then, again, the fork has dropped. And once again, someone has brought a car to the table. And tried to show that you can't eat the tires.

And by this, we can all see that the car is not food. Yep.

I can't believe you said that!

Yes yes, and?